|
Sitemap
| Jobs
|
Contact Us
|
Building Smart Education Systems |
Voices in Urban Education
Archives
Evidence-Based Practice
VUE Number 6, Winter 2005
| VUE Home | Archives | Order Print Copy |
A Fad or the Real Thing? Making Evidence-Based Practice Work
By Robert Rothman
Robert Rothman is a Principal Associate & Editor of VUE at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
> Author's biography
Among the many buzzwords swarming around education reform, "evidence-based practice" has become one of the hottest. Spurred in part by No Child Left Behind Act – with its more than one hundred references to research and evidence – and, in part, by efforts by the business community and others to help infuse educational decisions with data, schools and school systems are quickly lining up to demonstrate how their curricular and spending decisions reflect evidence about what works and what's needed.
To a great extent, this trend is a positive one. Educators will admit that many decisions have been based more on history (the way schools have always worked) and on politics (the wishes of a favored constituency) than on evidence. And with budgets tight, administrators are eager to show that schools are producing results.
Yet, like many concepts, "evidence-based practice" can mean many different things, and the way it is interpreted and applied can determine whether it represents a real change in the way schools operate or just another fad.
The notion of evidence-based practice implied in No Child Left Behind is a limited one. The law is producing reams of data, but nearly all of it is standardized-test data that cannot sufficiently inform decisions about programs and practices. While it is useful to know whether certain groups of students are performing less well than others in mathematics, it is also important to know what the classrooms are teaching so that schools can know what to change.
In addition, the law's emphasis on knowing "what works" is based on a limited model of research that assumes that a program that works in one school will work in any school. The type of randomized trials the law holds up as the "gold standard" for education research, similar to the kind of studies used in medical research, say little about how to implement an innovation.
This issue of Voices in Urban Education examines evidence-based practice and its application in urban school systems.
Warren Simmons points out the limitations of the data and research methods implied by No Child Left Behind. He argues for expanding data systems to include measures of the conditions of instruction and for expanding the notion of research to include collaborations between researchers and practitioners that would take into account the context of educational innovations.
> Excerpt
David V. Abbott describes an accountability system being developed by the Rhode Island Department of Education that aims to help districts provide appropriate support to a range of schools. To that end, the state collects a broad range of evidence on school and district practice.
> Excerpt
Meredith I. Honig and Cynthia E. Coburn scan the evidence on how district administrators actually use evidence. They find that, contrary to conventional wisdom, administrators rely on evidence fairly heavily. However, they also found that the evidence does not necessarily shine "floodlights" on practice; administrators need models for how to use evidence effectively.
> Full text with audio clips
Dale Mezzacappa describes how journalists use research in examining school and district practices. She provides examples of newspaper articles that combine data with in-depth stories of classrooms and families; together, these two kinds of evidence give readers a good sense of how schools work.
> Excerpt
All of the articles make clear that evidence-based practice will only make a difference if decision-makers are skillful in analyzing data and in using it to inform decisions. Too often, school systems ignore this lesson and leap to structural solutions – for instance, building an information system without considering what the information is supposed to be used for and who is supposed to use it. Unless practitioners have the knowledge and skills to use information effectively, all the data in the world will do little good. Perhaps that's one reason Honig and Coburn found little evidence that evidence-based practice has so far improved school outcomes.
The growing interest in evidence-based practice suggests that many believe the concept has the potential to produce genuine improvements. The good news is that more and more people are unwilling to take those assurances on faith. With a broad range of data and an expanded notion of how to analyze it, we might begin to see real evidence about evidence-based practice very soon.
Archives
Evidence-Based Practice
VUE Number 6, Winter 2005
| VUE Home | Archives | Order Print Copy |
A Fad or the Real Thing? Making Evidence-Based Practice Work
By Robert Rothman
Robert Rothman is a Principal Associate & Editor of VUE at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
> Author's biography
Among the many buzzwords swarming around education reform, "evidence-based practice" has become one of the hottest. Spurred in part by No Child Left Behind Act – with its more than one hundred references to research and evidence – and, in part, by efforts by the business community and others to help infuse educational decisions with data, schools and school systems are quickly lining up to demonstrate how their curricular and spending decisions reflect evidence about what works and what's needed.
To a great extent, this trend is a positive one. Educators will admit that many decisions have been based more on history (the way schools have always worked) and on politics (the wishes of a favored constituency) than on evidence. And with budgets tight, administrators are eager to show that schools are producing results.
Yet, like many concepts, "evidence-based practice" can mean many different things, and the way it is interpreted and applied can determine whether it represents a real change in the way schools operate or just another fad.
The notion of evidence-based practice implied in No Child Left Behind is a limited one. The law is producing reams of data, but nearly all of it is standardized-test data that cannot sufficiently inform decisions about programs and practices. While it is useful to know whether certain groups of students are performing less well than others in mathematics, it is also important to know what the classrooms are teaching so that schools can know what to change.
In addition, the law's emphasis on knowing "what works" is based on a limited model of research that assumes that a program that works in one school will work in any school. The type of randomized trials the law holds up as the "gold standard" for education research, similar to the kind of studies used in medical research, say little about how to implement an innovation.
This issue of Voices in Urban Education examines evidence-based practice and its application in urban school systems.
Warren Simmons points out the limitations of the data and research methods implied by No Child Left Behind. He argues for expanding data systems to include measures of the conditions of instruction and for expanding the notion of research to include collaborations between researchers and practitioners that would take into account the context of educational innovations.
> Excerpt
David V. Abbott describes an accountability system being developed by the Rhode Island Department of Education that aims to help districts provide appropriate support to a range of schools. To that end, the state collects a broad range of evidence on school and district practice.
> Excerpt
Meredith I. Honig and Cynthia E. Coburn scan the evidence on how district administrators actually use evidence. They find that, contrary to conventional wisdom, administrators rely on evidence fairly heavily. However, they also found that the evidence does not necessarily shine "floodlights" on practice; administrators need models for how to use evidence effectively.
> Full text with audio clips
Dale Mezzacappa describes how journalists use research in examining school and district practices. She provides examples of newspaper articles that combine data with in-depth stories of classrooms and families; together, these two kinds of evidence give readers a good sense of how schools work.
> Excerpt
All of the articles make clear that evidence-based practice will only make a difference if decision-makers are skillful in analyzing data and in using it to inform decisions. Too often, school systems ignore this lesson and leap to structural solutions – for instance, building an information system without considering what the information is supposed to be used for and who is supposed to use it. Unless practitioners have the knowledge and skills to use information effectively, all the data in the world will do little good. Perhaps that's one reason Honig and Coburn found little evidence that evidence-based practice has so far improved school outcomes.
The growing interest in evidence-based practice suggests that many believe the concept has the potential to produce genuine improvements. The good news is that more and more people are unwilling to take those assurances on faith. With a broad range of data and an expanded notion of how to analyze it, we might begin to see real evidence about evidence-based practice very soon.
|
Annenberg Institute for School Reform Brown University, Box 1985 Providence, RI 02912 |
Telephone: 401.863.7790 Fax: 401.863.1290 |
AISR_info@brown.edu
|
© all material AISR